Could Froslass and Roserade really be dangerous Pokemon?

[Sneazy Sneasel]

They both look docile but according to they dex entries Froslass freezes and displays the frozen bodies of it's victims while Roserade lures in prey with sweet scent then kills them with its thorny vines , do you find and of this tp be true?

 

[Blaze-Boy]

I believe Froslass might be and Roserade fits that description

 

[RemainsToLinger]

Oh, of course. I mean look at the inspirations alone: yuki-onna for Froslass, and Tuxedo Mask for Roserade. I mean...that dude threw roses with deadly accuracy...scary...

But seriously, yeah. Those 'mons are as dangerous as Eelektross or Chandelure. I mean, if your Dex info is focused on how you kill your prey rather than other quirks about you, you must be first and foremost pretty deadly.

 

[Juvarra]

Why not? Yuki-onna is a frightening creature. And Roserade, well, it's a poisonous rose. Sentient.
Surely they're more dangerous than a Pineco.

 

[Iteru]

There's a lot of animals that look as if there'd be totally docile and just aren't. Take geese; they look pretty and harmless but they become very vicious and defensive quickly.

It's the same with Pokémon really. Looks are deceiving.

 

[S.S. Shadow Minun]

For Froslass, she might freezes somebody who "betrayed" her, and then show the bodies of them. But, Roserade would work in a similar way to that of a sniper. In fact, the roses on his hands work like bazookas (Solar Beam) or sniper rifles (Poison Sting).

IMO, not just these two, some other Pokémon like Cacturne could be potentially dangerous too.

 

[Almonds]

Don't know much about Roserade, but Froslass is based on Yuki-onna's and she'd probably kill guys a lot in the mountains.

 

[Envoy]

But, Roserade would work in a similar way to that of a sniper. In fact, the roses on his hands work like bazookas (Solar Beam) or sniper rifles (Poison Sting).

As if I needed even more reasons to love Roserade. Thanks for pointing this out, my love for Rosy just skyrocketed tenfold d(and I already loved her from the beginning.)

 

[Dragonfyre]

Looks have next to zero correlation to strength in Pokémon. Think of the pokémon you find the cutest. Now think of its attacks. It doesn't even matter if the Pokémon is just in its first evolutionary stage or a damn Baby pokémon, it will have attacks that let loose some sort of supernatural/elemental power that would probably be ranked right next to a machine gun in the real world, destruction potential-wise.

Seriously. All Pokémon can be considered cute (even much-hated Pokémon such as Trubbish) as much as they all have terrifying attacks that would cause massive, widespread damage in the real world. We're talking about a series that's trying to sell truckloads of cutesy plushies and games that has us pitting the very same characters they make plushies of against each other in insanely fun I-will-rip-you-apart bloodlust bouts at the same time.

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

There are flowers in our world that kill you if you make the slightlest contact with anything of them, including spores.

Now imagine these flowers are also autonomous and can shoot beams and spikes and strangle dinosaurs.


Pokémon are literally monsters. Monsters that can be friendly and cute, but still have their metaphorical fangs.

But this isn't about capability, it's about willingness. And there is a long enough history of people either misinterpreting looks or being decieved by them.
And Frosslass specifically is based in one such story.

 

[TheCableGuy]

Pokémon are literally monsters. Monsters that can be friendly and cute, but still have their metaphorical fangs.

But this isn't about capability, it's about willingness. And there is a long enough history of people either misinterpreting looks or being decieved by them.
And Frosslass specifically is based in one such story.

Actually, I've always disagreed with calling Pokemon "Monsters"
as I disagree with the usage of the word in virtually all cases.
"Monster" implies a creature of "Unnatural" origin, an Abomination,
and/or characterized by being Malevolent, inherently destructive and/or Evil.
The word has historically been misused to refer to anything we humans fear or do not understand
or as a "anything goes" sort of classification for anything not classified as plant or animal.

While it's true the the word "Pokemon" originates from a time when ignorant humans
once thought of Pokemon as just magical creatures,
I do not believe it's fair to continue to think of them as "Literally Monsters."

That said, I do agree with your point. I'm not trying to call you out on it
rather it's a bit of a pet-peeve of mine whenever anyone uses the word "Monster"
especially when referring to Pokemon.